Online education threatens rural schools

The principal of a small high school in Prince George says online learning threatens the future of his school.

In an article published in the June edition of Adminfo, Dan Kendel, principal of Valemont secondary school, says he believes the same threat exists for rural schools around the province. (Adminfo is the publication of the B.C. Principals’ and Vice-Principals’ Association.)

Online education is intended to create more choice, but when students in a small school opt to take a course online, they reduce demand for that same course in the bricks-and-mortar school, he notes. The example he gives is Physics 11, which his school – with only 100 students – can only offer once every two years.

“This year, on one of our ‘off years’, three students in Grade 11 chose to take it on-line,” Kendel writes. “Out of the pool of potential students for Physics 11 next year, which I could run at 10 students if I had to, I now have seven. As a direct result of their ‘choice,’ the course no longer becomes viable. Here are the spinoffs.

“I may also lose the funding for the other seven students, who may now be forced to take Physics 11 online too. They lose their choice to learn in a classroom. Their only option is now online.

“With every lost funded block in a school my size, I jeopardize the ability to keep subject specific teachers employed. That is a real threat to face-to-face teaching in small communities. As a result of losing Physics 11 this time around, what is the scenario that brings it back in two to four years? What do I get this teacher to do instead? What subject area is next? How could I ever attract a senior math/science teacher to come here under this level of uncertainty?”

He says rural schools need to be viewed as fragile ecosystems. “We need to defend classroom instruction against all threats, even those that are well intended. Our rural communities, as well as our schools, are at stake.“

Unfortunately, he does not suggest a solution . . . but you can read his article here.

John, I have hard copy evidence of brainwashing by the BCTF of my kids … I can show it to you if you like! Canada, after the US is funded better than any other country, and indeed suggests that more money does not equal a good or better education. Where does the money come from anyway? New Zealand and Australia (countries with similar history and living standards as ours) spend roughly half of what we do yet achieve at least as high a standard in most international test … if indeed that is the benchmark in which we rate education systems.

To Tunya Audain, What really makes schools responsive is teachers, parents and community members volunteering to make them responsive. One of the main reasons we have such a successful school system, is our incredibly successful sports and extra–curricular programs found at most public schools in BC. The only crisis these days is lack of government funding. Have you considered coaching a team these days? How about helping at a public school drama production? If you connect with your local public schools, you’ll find them to be real centers of their communities. This is true everywhere in BC. Children are proud of their schools. They’re proud because they’re becoming literate and numerate in a challenging and fun social environment with their peers, led by professional teachers. And they’re happiest when everyone pitches in to help. I suggest you forget the ‘high handed debate approach’ and try volunteering at your neighborhood school. It might allow to to share in the goodness most of us feel about our local public schools and public education in BC. You’ll certainly be directly helping school aged children.

Responsive Schools Key to Good Society: Nobel Winner It takes a political scientist to unravel the economics of citizens effectively and efficiently managing their own affairs and that of their immediate communities. In other words, self-governance works. Provided there is limited central state interference and provided powerful self-interested insiders don’t rule. That is the message Elinor Ostrom, a co-winner in this year’s Nobel Economics prize, passes on to help empower people at local levels to both a) challenge outsiders and self-interests, and b) confidently evolve the procedures, rules, and oversight which serve their interests. She cautions against any one-size-fits-all model. Local people, local governance. She and others of her school of thought challenge the usual dichotomy in seeking solutions – state or market. Should there be state finance, control and provision of services and resource management or should the markets prevail? There is a third way – communitarian. While Ostrom’s work has usually dealt with user-managed fish stocks, pastures, woods, lakes, and groundwater basins, she has also been embraced by development workers, especially in third world countries. Her general principles apply to any area where citizens manage their own projects — without the heavy fist of the state or the invisible hand of the market. Ostrom distinguishes the three methods of provision: public, private, and civil. She sees more citizens becoming involved in policy analysis and application if they are to avoid becoming “the objects of an authoritarian regime” or exploited for profit. Self-governing, adaptive organizations follow these principles: 1. Balance power at many levels within the structure (checks and balances) 2. Monitor performances and hold designated persons accountable 3. Accept conflict as healthy, indicating need for mediation or more problem-solving 4. Empower citizens and communities with enforceable rights to check abuses of authority Regarding the education field she comments that simplistic solutions can go “amok”. Amazing word to be used by an academic — “berserk, demoniacal, possessed, insane, characteristic of mental derangement” (Wikipedia)! After studying 70 years of school district consolidations in the name of efficiency and equity she found that these “top-down, command-and-control solutions” did not result in better achievement or lower per-pupil spending. She concludes that “policy makers are reconsidering the consequences of past reforms and recommending charter schools, voucher systems, and other reforms to create more responsive schools.” In other words, she concludes, “state control has usually proved to be less effective and efficient than control by those directly affected” and sometimes even “disastrous in its consequences.” What applies to forests and fish-stocks applies to people services as well. That is why school-based management, independent schools, charter schools, parent participation preschool cooperatives, etc. work so well. Unfortunately, today, they are often resisted and blocked by powerful self-interests. Fortunately, however, we now have a more prominently revealed social science to help those who seek communitarian solutions to social services. (See “Policy Analysis in the Future of Good Societies” by Elinor Ostrom http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/good_society/v011/11.1ostrom.html

Tunya, I welcome informed discussion. I suggest you become informed about public schools before you criticize them. This means opening your mind to what’s really going on in them, rather than seiing things through the narrow perspective of libertarianism. Tunya, are you an anarachist libertarian or a minarchist libertarian ? Readers should know that anarchists believe in no government and people taking the law into their own hands. Minarchists believe the only role for government is to protect private property. (Those with all the property get the protection !) So which one is it for you? To the parent readers, how would you like to send your children to learn from such a person? Would you rather send them to a public school perhaps? Tunya, the libertarian philosophy you espouse is a perdpective steeped in conspiracy theories. If it isn’t the BCTF conspiring, it’s the government or now me. Good luck, I hope you find the culprits !!

John thinks criticism of schools by anyone who doesn’t work in them should not be allowed unless the critic visits every public school out there. Oh really? Gosh that would take years and I doubt John has done it. Where exactly John did Tunya tell anyone to ignore anyone? And fyi Libertarianism is a philosophy of minimizing unnecessary government not getting rid of all social programs and public services. Misinformation, deflection, defensiveness and sweeping generalizations. If there was an ignore button on this blog I would use it to ignore “John”.

To David A. Where is the evidence of brainwashing by the BCTF? There isn’t any. I don’t believe union rhetoric any more than government vote-getting slogans or inflammatory news stories. Teachers are legally required (and do) follow the Ministry Of Education Prescribed Learning Outcomes (see Ministry Website) to teach the curriculum. If you’re fortunate enough to visit a local public school — and I mean all of them, you’ll see all the learning activities designed to teach literacy, numeracy and good responsible citizenship. You’ll be amazed at all the choices within schools and the new choice of schools for students. You’ll see most students loving to be with their friends at their neighborhood schools. Tunya Audain continues to preach libertarianism. This means a society with no tax, no social services like public healthcare and public education. It’s a ‘dog-eat dog world’ where the most powerful take all and everyone else suffers. What a great proposition for children! No wonder she’s a perpetual loser in school board/council elections. I especially resent her calling on readers to ignore all opposition to her ideas. What a shame that rural schools are threatened by the false promise of a quality education via sitting at a computer all day. Their parents are denying their children the opportunity that other successful students get to collaborate with their peers in a live classroom acheiving successful learning outcomes. This isn’t some union driven conspiracy as Tunya suggests, it’s simply world class public education. The only crisis with our world class public education system is chronic government underfunding. The government simply isn’t keeping it’s promise to it’s citizens — especially our children.

Thanks Tunya, I have grave concerns for the future of public education. The BCTF and other teachers’ unions have become staggeringly wealthy wielding enormous power and influence over our kids, the government, and society in general. This has happened before … the 1930s comes to mind with the school system of several countries used to brainwash the population, stifling independent thought and expression. With more independent schools, home schooling or government funded charter schools there is greater diversity within our society and less of a challenge to our democracy.

To Aron Martens You obviously did not read my whole article, or you would see that what I fear is that DL courses are actually reducing choice for students. I also support DL courses, for some learners in some situations. Canada’s education system is rated at #2 in the world. When you factor in that BC is one of the most successful provinces in education, we are actually #1. We are current in practice, effective in curriculum delivery and VERY up to date. In terms of expensive, well, I think the alternative is more expensive. Education is not an industry. It is a a societal foundation on which industry, culture, and citizenry is perched. All current research points to the superiority of relationship based quality classroom instruction, in a face to face environment, with the support of technology, where it is shown to enhance learning. Remember, technology also brought us Halo 3 and Grand Theft Auto. We need to use technology responsibly and judiciously, especially in these fast paced days of technicalogical change. And as teachers, Mr. Marten, we have a duty to preserve, celebrate and protect what works for kids. We are doing that. What you propose, however, is reckless and inflamatory.

Learning Unleashed! A spontaneous natural order is unfolding in education, thanks to technology. Boundaries and man-made restrictions are unbound. Students and their parents are finding ways to fulfill their education needs through the miracle of freedom-to-seek tools – Internet, cyber and virtual schools, online instruction/tutoring/counseling, etc. As long as they’re not intimidated via scare tactics (truancy laws!, “threats” to communities, school “catchment” zones, “certified” teacher requirements, etc.) people will find the methods and atmospheres that suit them in fulfilling learning needs. Home education in the 1980’s was the first wave of education freedom available to the masses. It was the first escape from government education as utility model. Central planners from government offices, school boards, teacher unions, training institutions, plus hosts of other controlling agencies were successfully bypassed to qualify many young people for universities (even Harvard!) and other post-secondary training. I was part of that movement (see: http://abolish-school-boards.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/home-education-third-option.pdf). I ended my 5 page article, “Home education: the third option” with cautions against a “predatory state” and quoted John Holt, an early pioneer of HE thus: “Today, freedom has different enemies. It must be fought for in different ways. It will take very different qualities of mind and heart to save it.” The graduates of home education are more likely to embrace “Don’t tread on me” than attitudes of obedience to the all-mighty state and its agents. Now, about technology. Yes, it is a liberating force but caution dictates. First, these choices should be well-informed and technology itself helps in these comparisons. From another blog I obtained this figure for BC: “Since almost 8% of the total student population is using online education, we know there is an appetite for choice…Over 40 schools have placed their online offerings on a single portal – http://learnnowbc.ca/ There are 2500 courses and programs available there…13 million hits this year.” (EDUCAN Mar 12/09) Technology and appetite for it has a life of its own – its own propulsion fuel, trajectories, and motivations. Secondly, about technology, we must be aware of the counterforce. The opposition, the obstacles, the covert maneuvers, the resistance. This is all neatly discussed in chapters in the new book, “Liberating Learning” by Moe and Chubb. Under such headings as Politics of Blocking (POB) they particularly single out teacher unions as a most powerful, undermining counterforce. The status quo “…has a powerful protector – the teachers unions – capable of shielding it [the American education system] from the unsettling forces of reform and change…the unions have amassed formidable power rooted in collective bargaining and electoral politics. They have fundamental interests – interests not aligned with those of children – that drive them to oppose almost all consequential changes…And they operate in a political system that is literally built to make it easy for them to block.” This is the American scene. It is not much different from BC or the rest of Canada. A BCTF article on “Education & technology” ponders whether education should be a “collective social experience” or “an individualist activity”. You can be sure the BCTF weighs in on the collectivist experience. (Teacher Newsmagazine April 2008 ) Thank the heavens above for the liberating force of here-and-now technology for the immense potential of meeting individual education needs.

To Aron Martens As a society we need to decide our priorities. One of these must be to help the sick with public healthcare. The other is to help children by offering them freely accesible public education — as it is now. Choice should not just be available to rich children, but to all children. The only crisis in our otherwise world-class public education system is with government underfunding. Barack Obama’s valiant fight to rescue the USA from predatory private health insurance companies shows just how vulnerable the sick can become when left to the marketplace. In the existing private market healthcare system, companies are free to deny people healthcare regardless of the patient’s health needs. As Obama aptly points out, this is happening to millions of Americans. It’s manily people on the shrill right wing of the Republican party like Sarah Palin are supportive of this existing system. Also, and please take note: the American healthcare system costs twice as much as Canada’s on a per capita basis ! And 47 million Americans can’t afford their heath insurance ! A similar situation would surely result with a completely privatized school system here. Choices would be available to the rich and not to the poor. Like in the USA, rich families would move to the suburbs to attend schools with their rich peers, leaving millions of poorer people in the cities. In our society of single parent families, struggling to make ends meet, we would surely see a huge increase in truancy. Profit would drive schools, taking money and professionalism away from educational programs. The cost to our society from privatizing our school system far outweigh any benefits, except to the very rich. Your theory belongs in an economics 100 classroom where you can create a society with a level playing field. It’s way removed from the reality of our modern society. I suggest you pay attention to the successes of our public schools for children, parents and society and leave the overly simple economic theory in the clouds.

If we opened up the school system to more choices all these issues about the appropriate use of technology would sort themselves out. Parents would soon discover which methods bring the best results for their children. If technology doesn’t work then parents would insist that it not be used. It was not my intention to imply that technology should replace teachers in total. I do not know which method works best. What I do know is that there are many ways to get an education. Perhaps the most effective way would be for each student to have their own private teacher. This solution illustrates the necessity of considering costs as well as effectiveness. To John on your truancy comments: It should not be the job of the police to force children to attend school. This should be the responsibility of parents. Maybe if we used more technology in the schools and gave parents more school choices there would be more interest in school by the children. To the un-named responder to my earlier comments, I would challenge the writer in his assertion that schools are not factories. Perhaps the monopoly government run on-size fits all education system is nothing more than a factory to massively produce homogenized, compliant citizens who serve the political and corporate elite. To

I don’t see a threat from virtual schools that is not also present from any ‘choice’ program. Here in Langley, where the focus has been on choice for years, the neighbourhood schools have experienced great numbers of students leaving for the elitism that the choice programs offer. The result has been school closures and reviews and questionable viability in a great number of our neighbourhood schools, which causes even more parents to seek out the stability of choice schools, and we all spiral downward. It seems to me that either the province mandates that all students attend their neighbourhood schools, or they let the chips (and the students) fall where they may and deal with the fallout.

This is a complex and important issue that calls for further informed discussion. It may well be that the rural, small districts are the canaries in the coal mine and that all districts will have to come to terms as we grapple with the expanding and changing use of technology both inside out outside classrooms. Distance Ed clearly provides a quality for option for many students and from what I’ve seen from the range of course available across the province, it has already moved far beyond the old-style correspondence courses, with high levels of real-time interaction with teachers and classmates, group projects etc. But I also have concerns that it may not suit all students and may well contribute to inequities in access – if a student doesn’t have a reasonable work space, decent computer with reliable internet access, some kind of adult supervision and support etc., it may be difficult for that student to succeed. And of course there are many benefits (although some disadvantages!) to the social components of bricks and mortar schools, and the interactions students have with teachers and staff, and each other. I believe there is also research linking a student’s feeling of connectedness with his/her school with academic achievement. We are in a transitional time. We need to fully understand what works, what doesn’t, for whom it works, and for whom it doesn’t. We need to ensure all students have equitable access to appropriate educational opportunities and that decisions are made based on education outcomes, not on the bottom line. My fear is that with the provincial government’s choice to chronically underfund public education, there will be increased pressure to reduce choices to students with a shift to the cheapest-to-deliver option. The needs of students must come first.

Online learning cannot possibly replace classroom experience, and the is irony of teaching physical sciences without the benefits of hands-on experience is almost humourous. When comparing the ability to have a genuine in-person dialogue as opposed to the painfully slow evolution of a distance course, it makes one wonder how this type of education can be considered thorough and meaningful. How much time will it take for the flood of Master’s Degrees in both education and business to become devalued and subsequently recognized as an exercise in simply jumping the hoops to earn the paper if the current trends continue?

Students are not adults and should not be allowed too miss school ! Our truancy law is being breached with this foolish move to ‘distance learning’ by computer. The benefits to the student and to society of the student learning to achieve with his/her peers in a cooperative and competitive way have always meant that children should be in school. As it’s always been, children are not of age to make the important decision about whether to miss school or not. Normally, children realize the benefits of learning with their peers. Parents should think very carefully about sitting their child down at a computer all day instead of interacting with their peers at school. Besides, students really benefit from having a highly skilled professional teacher in their classroom.

Sorry, but the computer will never replace the teacher. Distance learning is just glamorized correspondence courses. Good teachers all over BC teach using computers, but only as a tool in the classroom. School aged children need the support and guidance of professional teachers and this is missing without a teacher present. Students also benefit from the culture of the classroom and the school — cultures where cooperation and collaboration are taught and experienced. Children deserve far more than to sit in front of a computer all day. Otherwise, let’s just send them to work ! Public education is not an industry ! There is no profit and it’s focus is on the well-being of the student and the public good of society. We’re not factories producing students as you seem to suggest. No wonder you also suggest school aged children should sit at computers like little robots. Sorry to inform you, but education is a human thing. Teachers children deserve to be treated with more respect. Our public school education is the best investment we can make in the future. It’s simply false to suggest it’s an industry and to imply that students are the products of that industry.

Your article states that principal Dan Kendel offers no solution to the threat of on-line education on the viability of his school. I think one can infer that he wants to eliminate this choice for students. There is no reason why students should not avail themselves of new technology in the learning process. What it seems to be telling anyone who cares to listen is that the traditional method of teaching is outdated, expensive, inconvenient and ineffective. Why shouldn’t the education industry do what every other industry does – seek to reduce costs and improve quality by adopting new technology. The people have spoken. They like the new technology. Dan Kendel and your kind, get out out of the way.

I would like to hear a more rounded discussion on this topic from a student point of view rather than from an education business point of view. Whose rights are more important here? The rights of the 3 students to take physics through online learning or the rights of maybe 7 students now to take classroom physics. What if the physics course didn’t fit into all 10 timetables? What if not all 10 students decided to take physics in the end? What if the 3 students need another elective that also is only offered every second year and was in conflict with physics? What about the right of all students to find a learning path that best suits their learning style when they are ready to learn? The issue is not so simple as keeping brick and mortor classrooms and it never has been.